R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (1)
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision : 4.12.2008
1. R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (O&M)
Mehar Chand (deceased) through LRs. ... Appellant
vs
Union of India .... Respondent
2. R. F. A No. 2003 of 1990 (O&M)
Union of India … Appellant
vs
Mehar Chand (deceased) …. Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Advocate, for the landowner.
Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order shall dispose of Regular First Appeal nos. 2003 and
2271 of 1990 filed by the landowner and Union of India respectively against
a common award of the learned court below. The landowner has approached
this court for enhancement of compensation whereas the Union of India has
approached for reduction in the compensation awarded to the landowner.
The facts have been extracted from R. F. A. No. 2271 of 1990.
Briefly, the facts are that vide notification dated 10.7.1964,
issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the
Act’), Union of India acquired land in Village Kanthala, Chandigarh, for the
development of Sector-29, Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector (for
short, “the Collector”) vide his award dated 3.9.1964 assessed the market
value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,402/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the
award of the Collector, the landowner/claimant filed objections. On
reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned court below vide award
dated 2.5.1990, determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.
8,000/- per acre.
R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (2)
Learned counsel for the landowner submitted that as against
Ex. A-6, Ex. A-7 an award of the land acquired in Village Burail should
have been considered as Village Burail is situated adjoining to Village
Kanthala where the land in question is situated. The acquisition there was
carried out on 8.3.1973 and value of the acquired land was determined at
Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Referring to the judgment of this court in F. A. O. No.
475 of 1983 The Union of India and another vs Amar Singh and others,
decided on 15.11.1988, the submission is that a reasonable cut for the time
gap be applied considering that the acquisition in the present case was made
in the year 1964.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India
submitted that the reference court had determined the compensation relying
upon a judgment of this court in R. F. A. No. 78 of 1967 Rattan Singh and
others vs The State of Punjab and another decided on 4.12.1973 whereby
for the acquisition of land vide same notification, the compensation payable
to the landowners was assessed at Rs. 8,000/- per acre which was directed to
be paid to the landowner in the present case. Accordingly, no further
enhancement is possible. Referring to Ex. R-1, she pointed out that in this
award, learned court made reference in para 8 to an earlier judgment in
R. F. A. No. 472 of 1966 decided on 6.4.1972, where for the acquisition
carried out vide notification dated 10.7.1964, the compensation was
determined at Rs. 2,400/- per acre. The submission is that the amount of
compensation payable to the landowner should be reduced to Rs. 2,400/- per
acre.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The fact that vide judgment in Rattan Singh’s case (supra) Ex.
A-6, this court had determined the fair value of the land acquired vide the
same notification is not disputed. The contention of the learned counsel for
the landowner that as against A-6, the other award Ex. A-7 pertaining to the
acquisition of Village Burail carried out in the year 1973 should be relied
upon is totally misconceived even if the plea is that the land under
consideration therein is located in the vicinity. Even reliance of judgment of
this court in Amar Singh’s case (supra), is totally misconceived to claim that
a reasonable deduction for the time gap in two notifications be made. It may
be added here that the acquisition in Amar Singh’s case (supra) was made in
R. F. A No. 2271 of 1990 (3)
the year 1973 where relying upon an award for the acquisition made in 1977
certain deduction was made. If the principle followed in Amar Singh’s case
(supra) is applied in the present case it would mean going back by 13 years
for determination of fair value of the land in the present case. The award for
the acquisition carried out in 1977 is sought to be relied upon for the
acquisition made in 1964 which cannot be permitted. As far as reference to
earlier judgment of this court in Ex. R-1 is concerned, even reliance thereon
by the counsel for the Union of India is totally misconceived as even after
considering that fact the learned court below determined the compensation
payable at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. And learned counsel for the Union of India
did not point out as to whether any appeal was preferred against judgment
referred to as Ex. R-1, where inspite of referring to earlier judgment
determining compensation at Rs. 2,400/- per acre, the same was assessed at
Rs. 8,000/- per acre. As against this, the best precedent available is Ex. A-6
vide which the fair value of the land acquired vide same notification was
determined in the present case.
In view of the earlier judgment of this court in Rattan Singh’s
case (supra), I do not find any reason to differ with the same as there is no
independent evidence on record in the form of sale deeds/ transactions to
show that the value of the acquired land as has been determined by the court
below was more than what was determined therein.
For the reasons recorded above, both the appeals are dismissed.
4.12.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge